The Degree Of Agreement Among Several Trained Experts

In all cases, the relative number of IDUs marked by experts was strongly correlated (Figure 2D). The average pair correlation between FDI figures was 0.96 (range, 0.86-0.99). Although the prices of identifying explosive devices are different, experts have tended to score more or less EED in the same cases. The extent of the match by expert pairs was also analysed. “Substantial” and “almost perfect” values were found, as shown in Table 5. Comfort and deliberate sampling were used. The participants were 14 doctors (doctoral) from the University of Granada (Spain), with an average professional experience (in research and teaching) of 14.92 years (SD: 10.37 years) and trained in teaching in the fields of pedagogical psychology, language and literary didactics, research and diagnostic methods in education, nursing, obstetric and gynecological care, and food and nutrition sciences (Table 1). Reliable instruments are needed, as are instruments validated with the validity of the design, the validity of the criteria and the validity of the content, which are the most commonly used instruments [5]. Validity and reliability are two quality criteria that each measuring instrument must meet in order to be used by researchers in their studies. In order to validate health-related measurement instruments and ensure their reliability and validity, their psychometric properties must undergo a process of adaptation and validation. All of this is essential in determining the quality of the measurements taken by these instruments.

The validity of the content is defined as “the degree to which the elements of an assessment instrument are relevant and representative for the construction envisaged for a specific evaluation object” [6] (p. 238). The instruments should therefore be of the highest quality, which would facilitate the obtaining of valid and reliable evidence [7]. In this sense, the usual way of assessing the quality of an instrument is the consultation of experts, which essentially consists of evaluating an instrument according to a procedure known as expert judgment [8]. Of the 1051 EEGs evaluated in the study, 540 (51.4%) women and 511 (48.6%) They were men. In Phase 1, 9 experts scored potential EEDs in a median of 65 EEG (interquartile interval [IQR], 28-332). The total number of registered FDI candidates was 87,636. IRR expert for the 13,262 individually rated FDI candidates was fair, with the average PA being 72.4% (95% CI, 67.0%-77.8%) The State Commission of the 48.7% (IC 95%, 37.3% -60.1%). The EEG ERREUR was important, with the average PA being 80.9% (95%, 76.2% to 85.7%).

69.4% (95% CI, 60.3% to 78.5%). A statistical model based on waveform morphological characteristics, when accompanied by individualized thresholds, explained the median binary values of all experts with high accuracy of 80% (domain, 73%-88%).